Last week, I wrote a post about how the United Nations has become one big joke that should be replaced with what I call a Free United Nations; a global organization composed only of freedom-loving, democratic nation-states. I also suggested that such an organization should operate more like a government rather than an international organization made up of diplomats, like the current U.N. I did not, however, go into great detail in regards to how I see a new, Free U.N. being structured. Therefore I will use this post to provide a more in-depth description of what I think the Free U.N. should look like.
The Global Parliament
In my original post on the U.N., I said that there should be a parliament. By this, I meant a parliament that is democratically elected by the people of each member state, rather than an assembly of diplomats, like the current U.N.'s General Assembly (UNGA). Furthermore, unlike the UNGA, where each nation-state has one vote, I would suggest that the Global Parliament of the Free U.N. use a formula of representation based on population. So for example, the United States, with a population in excess of 300 million people, would have far more representatives than say, my home country of Canada, which has only about 35 million people. I do believe, however, that each nation-state should have a minimum of two representatives.
All the member states would be able to decide for themselves what electoral system they use to elect their representatives, be it proportional representation, first-past-the-post or some other method. The only condition would be that the representatives have to be directly elected by the countries' citizens through universal adult suffrage; ie. all citizens of each country aged 18 years or more would have the right to vote. It may be feasible to structure the Global Parliament as a bicameral legislature if many member states insist on having a chamber where each state has an equal number of votes, instead of just having a unicameral legislature based on representation by population. In this case, I would recommend that one chamber, called the Global Assembly, be structured based on the representation by population model, while a second chamber, which I will call the Global Senate, be made up of two representatives from each country, regardless of population; ie. each country gets two representatives and two votes. All representatives in the Global Parliament will be elected to fixed terms. I personally would recommend four year terms.
The Prime Minister and Cabinet
As in any parliamentary governmental system, the Global Parliament, or the lower house thereof, will choose a Prime Minister, who will in turn choose ministers to form a cabinet.
The Council of Ministers
Although I argued that the Free U.N. should be structured as if it were the democratically elected government of a country, I would also contend that it is the member states that must have the final say in the decisions made by the new organization; at least on a temporary basis. What I mean is that even though I believe that the leaders of the free world would agree to form a new, Free United Nations, I don't believe that they would be willing to turn over their sovereign right to create and enforce international laws to what will essentially be an aspiring world government. Hence, I propose that until a certain level of trust and unity amongst the nation-states is obtained, the member states of the Free U.N. must have an organ of power that they can use in order to have the final say on whatever decisions the organization makes.
My proposed Council of Ministers would be that organ of power and would function in very much the same way as the Council of Ministers in the European Union does today. The E.U.'s Council of Ministers was created as the original, de-facto legislature of the organization. It is composed of one minister from each member country. The portfolios of those ministers depend whatever issue is up for discussion at any given time. So for example, if the Council is discussing agricultural subsidies, the ministers responsible for agriculture in each member country will meet. Each member state in the E.U.'s Council of Ministers has a certain number of votes in accordance with their respective populations. The Free U.N.'s Council of Ministers would work the same way. In many cases, special majorities or even unanimous votes are required in the E.U.'s Council of Ministers in regards to issues of major importance. I would suggest that in the Free U.N.'s Council of Ministers, a special majority, say two thirds, be required when authorizing the use of force in order to enforce international law, though I believe that other issues should be decided by majority vote. Furthermore, under NO circumstances should one country, no matter how populous or powerful, have a veto over decisions in the Free U.N. The last thing we need is the kind of dysfunction and deadlock that passes for normalcy in the current U.N.'s Security Council.
The President of the Free United Nations
All international governmental organizations have one person at the top. The current U.N. has the Secretary-General, the European Union has the President of the European Commission, and so the Free U.N. should also have someone at the top who can speak on its behalf. I will call this person the President of the Free United Nations. He or she will be elected by the Council of Ministers and subject to approval by the Global Parliament. For the most part, the President of the Free U.N. will simply be a spokesperson for the organization, so the office will be largely ceremonial. The only authority the President will command will be the authority to choose a person in the Global Parliament to be the Prime Minister and charge him or her with the task of forming a cabinet. This is the power vested in the heads of state in all parliamentary democracies, be they presidents or constitutional monarchs, such as Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I do not envision, nor do I recommend, any one person having the kind of power that the President of the United States has.
The Global Supreme Court
All democratic governments have an independent judicial branch, and so should the Free United Nations. The Global Supreme Court that I envision will perform the tasks currently performed by the current U.N.'s International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. It will also be tasked with determining a nation-state's eligibility to be a member of the organization.
The Making of International Law in the Free United Nations
As I see it, measures to uphold, enhance or change international law should be proposed in the same way as bills meant to become laws are proposed in parliaments throughout the democratic world. Such a measure could originate in either the Global Parliament or the Council of Ministers. In the Global Parliament, it will be primarily the job of the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet to set the agenda on what proposals are debated and ultimately passed, just as it is in any current parliamentary democracy. Any proposal passed by the Global Parliament would have to be approved by the Council of Ministers before becoming law. The process could also begin in reverse, where the Council of Ministers would ratify a proposal before seeking its approval by the Global Parliament. Basically, no proposal could become law without the consent of both the Global Parliament and the Council of Ministers. It is my hope, however, that over time, the member states of the Free U.N. will build up a sense of trust and unity amongst each other so that eventually the Council of Ministers ceases to exist and power is placed solely in the hands of the Global Parliament, the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet.
Upholding, Creating and Enforcing International Law
As the subheading above implies, it will be the right and duty of the Free United Nations to uphold international law and facilitate the creation of new international law if need be. These are essentially the same things that the current U.N. is supposed to do, but has largely failed to do. In theory, the current U.N. is also supposed to enforce international law by force of arms, if necessary. Many people don't know it, but the U.N. was originally designed to have a military force of its own. This never came to fruition, however, so the U.N. is reliant on the military forces of its member states to do the enforcing. And as history has shown, this formula for enforcing international law hasn't worked very well.
The Free U.N. that I envision will have its own military force so that it is not entirely dependent on the good will of its members. How big this force will be and what equipment it will be armed with will obviously be subject to agreement by the members of the new organization. The Free U.N. force would be under the command of the Council of Ministers. It will be the sole discretion of the Council of Ministers to authorize the use of force.
Financing the Free United Nations
How does the current United Nations finance itself? Well, basically it's dependent on its members to pay their agreed-upon annual dues. Unfortunately, this formula hasn't worked too well, and so it's no surprise that the U.N. is often tight for money.
So how will the Free United Nations finance itself? Well, since I envision the Free U.N. working very much like a government, I would recommend that it finance itself the same way any government does: through taxes. Giving the current U.N. taxing powers is an idea that's been floating around for quite some time. But it's an idea that can't gain traction because of the U.N.'s reputation for being unaccountable and undemocratic. Now of course, everyone hates paying taxes, but most of us in the democratic world accept the burden of taxes because we know it pays for a lot of the things that we need, like schools, hospitals, police and so forth. We also know that the folks who make us pay taxes are the folks that we choose to put in power. I believe, therefore, that people in the democratic world would be willing to pay taxes to a Free U.N., knowing that the organization functions democratically and that it is an effective tool of global governance.
How Can We Create The Free United Nations?
It will obviously be up to the leaders of the free world to create the Free United Nations that I envision, or something similar. I myself do not have any political power beyond that of an ordinary citizen of the world, nor do I aspire to any political office in the future. So for now, all I can do is share my ideas and hope that the leaders of the world's democracies start considering alternatives to the mess that we call the United Nations.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Friday, May 1, 2015
The Haredi Extortion Machine Returns
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has almost finished putting together his new coalition government, but at a heavy price. In order to get Haredi parties Shas and United Torah Judaism to join his new government, he's had to agree to some very expensive demands. And who's going to pay for these demands? Well, the hardworking Israeli taxpayer of course! Yes, unfortunately, the Haredi extortion machine has returned after a brief hiatus where they were kept out of Netanyahu's last government. So basically, every Israeli who works for a living and contributes to society is going to have to pay so that Haredim can continue to sit in their synagogues and study the Torah all day. Sound familiar? It should, because the Haredi parties have been extorting money from the gainfully employed Israeli taxpayer for decades.
So what exactly does Israel's Joe the taxpayer have to give the Haredi parties this time? Well, how about a billion shekels to fund Haredi education institutions. And are these institutions going to teach the three Rs or any other practical skills that will allow Haredi children to get a job in the future? Nope, because the attitude of the Haredi parties is, "we don't need no stinkin' math! We don't need to go out and get a job like everyone else. We'll just sit in our synagogues and peruse the Torah all day while you suckers in the Israeli taxpaying public pay to feed and clothe us. Oh, and did we mention, you're also going to have to pay for more child allowances so that we can continue to breed like rabbits and have more children that will sit and study the Torah all day while pigging out at the trough of the Israeli taxpayer." A full description of what all of what you hardworking Israelis are going to have to pay the Haredi extortionists can be found here.
Unfortunately, Prime Minister Netanyahu, doesn't have much of a choice but to bring the Haredi parties on board. Not doing so would likely mean forming a unity government with the lefties in the Zionist Union - the same lefties that basically want to hand over the core of the Biblical Jewish homeland to the Palestinians so that they can shoot rockets at us from Ramallah and Nablus instead of just Gaza. And since Bibi is thankfully a leader that will not compromise on Israel's security, he has no choice but to bite the bullet and give the extortionists in the Haredi parties whatever they want. It's a situation that, for lack of a better term, really sucks, but as the French say, c'est la vie.
So what exactly does Israel's Joe the taxpayer have to give the Haredi parties this time? Well, how about a billion shekels to fund Haredi education institutions. And are these institutions going to teach the three Rs or any other practical skills that will allow Haredi children to get a job in the future? Nope, because the attitude of the Haredi parties is, "we don't need no stinkin' math! We don't need to go out and get a job like everyone else. We'll just sit in our synagogues and peruse the Torah all day while you suckers in the Israeli taxpaying public pay to feed and clothe us. Oh, and did we mention, you're also going to have to pay for more child allowances so that we can continue to breed like rabbits and have more children that will sit and study the Torah all day while pigging out at the trough of the Israeli taxpayer." A full description of what all of what you hardworking Israelis are going to have to pay the Haredi extortionists can be found here.
Unfortunately, Prime Minister Netanyahu, doesn't have much of a choice but to bring the Haredi parties on board. Not doing so would likely mean forming a unity government with the lefties in the Zionist Union - the same lefties that basically want to hand over the core of the Biblical Jewish homeland to the Palestinians so that they can shoot rockets at us from Ramallah and Nablus instead of just Gaza. And since Bibi is thankfully a leader that will not compromise on Israel's security, he has no choice but to bite the bullet and give the extortionists in the Haredi parties whatever they want. It's a situation that, for lack of a better term, really sucks, but as the French say, c'est la vie.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
The United Nations Is One Big Joke, So Let's Replace It With Something Better: A Free United Nations
The United Nations is celebrating its 70th anniversary this year. But what's there to celebrate? Seventy years of ineptitude, incompetence and ineffectiveness perhaps? In my honest opinion, the U.N. has gotten worse over the course of the past seven decades, and no more so than now. It's failed to prevent one humanitarian catastrophe after another and spends a disproportionate amount of its time scolding champions of freedom and human rights, like Israel, instead of going after the world's real villains, like the despots who rule countries such as China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Not surprising though, since many if the U.N.'s member states are led by illegitimate, undemocratic regimes - and this, I think, is the U.N.'s main problem. Seriously, how can the U.N. promote and uphold human rights when some of its members are the worst human rights offenders? Does it make sense, for example, that Saudi Arabia, one of the worst human rights offenders in the world, is currently a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, along with other frequent offenders, like Russia and China? Heck, in the fall of last year, some of the world's worst human rights offenders were elected to the council of the U.N.'s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), "a top U.N. body that regulates human rights groups, shapes the composition of key U.N. women's rights bodies, and adopts resolutions on subjects ranging from Internet freedom to female genital mutilation." (see: Rights abusers win coveted UN rights posts). These are just a couple of examples that demonstrate why the U.N. lacks any credibility whatsoever. So what do we do about this?
Plenty of noted scholars and world leaders have talked about reforming the U.N. for years. Ideas like expanding the Security Council and even giving the U.N. taxing powers to solve the organization's chronic underfunding have been juggled around for a long time. But as good as these ideas may be in theory, they don't solve what I believe is the U.N.'s main problem: members that don't believe in the principles on which the U.N. was founded, especially human rights principles. What I'm trying to say is that as long as the U.N. is largely influenced and sometimes even dominated by states that do not respect the basic values, rights and freedoms that the international organization is supposed to espouse, the world body will simply never work as it was intended to. So is that it? Are we stuck with a United Nations that will never work? Certainly not, because free countries don't have to stick to the U.N. They can form their own United Nations; a Free United Nations!
The Free United Nations:
Who's in and who's out?
Okay, so what do I mean by a Free United Nations? Basically, I mean a group composed only of nation-states that are free countries. But what is a "free country"? This is an important question, because whoever founds a Free U.N. will have to define what a free country is so that it can be determined which countries can be members and which cannot. From my perspective, a free country is a country governed by democracy and the rule of law, where political and civil liberties are respected. Simple enough, right? Not quite. The truth is that some countries are freer than others and measuring freedom is a subjective science. Hypothetically speaking, if I were one of the founding fathers of the Free U.N., I would probably define a free country using methodology similar to that of Freedom House. Freedom House is an independent human rights watchdog based in the U.S. that monitors human rights around the world. Each year, the organization puts out a report and rates each of the world's countries as "free", "partly free", or "not free" (see: https://freedomhouse.org. So if I were to use Freedom House's benchmarks for determining what countries get to be part of the Free U.N., I would allow only those countries that the organization rates as "free" to be part of it. And, if at any point, human rights in a particular country deteriorate to the point where that country is only "partly free" or even "not free", that country would be expelled from the Free U.N. until such time that it is considered "free" again. Enforcing these kinds of standards will be crucial for ensuring that the Free U.N. is a credible organization that can uphold the principles on which the original U.N. was founded.
Organization Structure:
I don't want to go into too much detail about what I think the Free United Nations should be structured. I will say, however, that it should not be structured like the current U.N. Most importantly, I would argue that the Free U.N. should not be an organization of diplomats. Rather, it should function like any democratic government, with an elected parliament, an executive branch that is accountable to that elected parliament, and an independent judicial branch. I do not believe in vesting too much power in a body like the current U.N. Security Council, where only five of the world's countries have permanent representation and veto power to boot. Put simply, I believe that a Free U.N. should function as if it were the government of all the free peoples of the world.
Why a Free United Nations is Better:
I am a firm believer in what scholarly types call "democratic peace theory", a theory which holds that democracies do not engage in armed conflict and are therefore more predisposed to resolving conflicts peacefully. For example, it is extremely difficult to imagine the U.S. and France going to war with each other so long as democracy and the rule of law are firmly entrenched in both countries. In contrast, it is very reasonable to expect that two countries ruled by despots, such as Iran and Iraq in the 1980s, would go to war with one another, or that a democracy like Israel would be dragged into a war with the autocratic regimes of her Arab neighbours. Hence, a Free United Nations composed only of free, democratic countries that share the same values will run much more cooperatively and effectively than the current U.N., where the agenda is often dominated by dictators seeking to enrich themselves rather than attend to the needs of their people.
The Ultimate Goal of the Free United Nations:
I admit that there is one great flaw in my idea of a Free United Nations: the fact that many countries and much of the world would be left out. Yes, it's true that if a Free U.N. were created with a membership composed only of free, democratic countries, there would be a lot of countries and people left out. According to Freedom House, over two billion people live under oppressive rule (see: https://freedomhouse.org/about-us#.VUBGNJP75K0) That's a lot of people whose countries would not be part of the Free U.N. Ideally, however, this exclusion will not last long, for I believe that the ultimate goal of the Free U.N. should be to make free the countries that are not. These newly free states would then be able to join the organization, and eventually the only countries in the world will be free countries.
Plenty of noted scholars and world leaders have talked about reforming the U.N. for years. Ideas like expanding the Security Council and even giving the U.N. taxing powers to solve the organization's chronic underfunding have been juggled around for a long time. But as good as these ideas may be in theory, they don't solve what I believe is the U.N.'s main problem: members that don't believe in the principles on which the U.N. was founded, especially human rights principles. What I'm trying to say is that as long as the U.N. is largely influenced and sometimes even dominated by states that do not respect the basic values, rights and freedoms that the international organization is supposed to espouse, the world body will simply never work as it was intended to. So is that it? Are we stuck with a United Nations that will never work? Certainly not, because free countries don't have to stick to the U.N. They can form their own United Nations; a Free United Nations!
The Free United Nations:
Who's in and who's out?
Okay, so what do I mean by a Free United Nations? Basically, I mean a group composed only of nation-states that are free countries. But what is a "free country"? This is an important question, because whoever founds a Free U.N. will have to define what a free country is so that it can be determined which countries can be members and which cannot. From my perspective, a free country is a country governed by democracy and the rule of law, where political and civil liberties are respected. Simple enough, right? Not quite. The truth is that some countries are freer than others and measuring freedom is a subjective science. Hypothetically speaking, if I were one of the founding fathers of the Free U.N., I would probably define a free country using methodology similar to that of Freedom House. Freedom House is an independent human rights watchdog based in the U.S. that monitors human rights around the world. Each year, the organization puts out a report and rates each of the world's countries as "free", "partly free", or "not free" (see: https://freedomhouse.org. So if I were to use Freedom House's benchmarks for determining what countries get to be part of the Free U.N., I would allow only those countries that the organization rates as "free" to be part of it. And, if at any point, human rights in a particular country deteriorate to the point where that country is only "partly free" or even "not free", that country would be expelled from the Free U.N. until such time that it is considered "free" again. Enforcing these kinds of standards will be crucial for ensuring that the Free U.N. is a credible organization that can uphold the principles on which the original U.N. was founded.
Organization Structure:
I don't want to go into too much detail about what I think the Free United Nations should be structured. I will say, however, that it should not be structured like the current U.N. Most importantly, I would argue that the Free U.N. should not be an organization of diplomats. Rather, it should function like any democratic government, with an elected parliament, an executive branch that is accountable to that elected parliament, and an independent judicial branch. I do not believe in vesting too much power in a body like the current U.N. Security Council, where only five of the world's countries have permanent representation and veto power to boot. Put simply, I believe that a Free U.N. should function as if it were the government of all the free peoples of the world.
Why a Free United Nations is Better:
I am a firm believer in what scholarly types call "democratic peace theory", a theory which holds that democracies do not engage in armed conflict and are therefore more predisposed to resolving conflicts peacefully. For example, it is extremely difficult to imagine the U.S. and France going to war with each other so long as democracy and the rule of law are firmly entrenched in both countries. In contrast, it is very reasonable to expect that two countries ruled by despots, such as Iran and Iraq in the 1980s, would go to war with one another, or that a democracy like Israel would be dragged into a war with the autocratic regimes of her Arab neighbours. Hence, a Free United Nations composed only of free, democratic countries that share the same values will run much more cooperatively and effectively than the current U.N., where the agenda is often dominated by dictators seeking to enrich themselves rather than attend to the needs of their people.
The Ultimate Goal of the Free United Nations:
I admit that there is one great flaw in my idea of a Free United Nations: the fact that many countries and much of the world would be left out. Yes, it's true that if a Free U.N. were created with a membership composed only of free, democratic countries, there would be a lot of countries and people left out. According to Freedom House, over two billion people live under oppressive rule (see: https://freedomhouse.org/about-us#.VUBGNJP75K0) That's a lot of people whose countries would not be part of the Free U.N. Ideally, however, this exclusion will not last long, for I believe that the ultimate goal of the Free U.N. should be to make free the countries that are not. These newly free states would then be able to join the organization, and eventually the only countries in the world will be free countries.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Putin's Russia Is No Friend Of Israel
Putin's totalitarian regime in Russia has recently announced that it will sell advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, which as we should all know is the greatest threat to the continuing existence of the State of Israel. Actually, Putin had planned on carrying out this sale years ago, but supposedly bowed to American and Israeli pressure not to do so, though he will deny this of course. So why go through with the sale now? Well, let's just say that Putin is a lot bolder than he was in years past. And why shouldn't he be? In the past year, he's walked into and taken over Crimea as easily as Hitler took over Austria, plus he's invaded and conquered a large chunk of eastern Ukraine. The West's response? A lot of hot air and some sanctions here and there.
It's also no coincidence that Russia's announcement of the missile sale came on the heels of U.S. President Barack Obama's latest Neville Chamberlain impression, as he declared to the world that a framework agreement over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program had been reached. "Peace in our time?" I think not - at least not when our time includes dictators like Vladimir Putin and Iran's ayatollahs, who go together like a horse and carriage. In fact, Iran wouldn't be anywhere close to the atomic bomb had it not been for the Russian expertise and ingenuity that built much of the Islamic Republic's nuclear infrastructure.
To make matters worse, Iran isn't the only mortal enemy of Israel that is the beneficiary of Putin's foreign policy. Just ask Syria's dictator, Bashar Al-Assad. He might be dead by now if not for the weapons supplied to him by Putin. Some of these weapons often make it into the hands of Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Islamist terrorist group, based in Lebanon and sworn to Israel's destruction.
Yet, despite all the help that Putin's Russia gives Israel's enemies, Israel's relations with Russia aren't all that bad. In fact, the current Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, is quite chummy with the Russian dictator. Me thinks they like to reminisce about their old KGB days. Personally, I think that Israel should stop trying to be Putin's friend and start fighting for the principles of freedom and democracy upon which it was founded. So when ideas float around about doing something to tick Putin off, like arming the Ukrainians to help them fight against the expanding Russian occupation of their country, I couldn't be happier. At the same time, however, I am also aware of the fact that Israel still needs to tread carefully so as not to jeopardize the lives of thousands of Jews still living in Russia and the former Soviet republics, because they will most definitely become a target for Putin should relations with Israel deteriorate, as I think they will. In light of this, I believe that it would be in Israel's best interest to do what it can to expedite the departure of Jews from the former Soviet states, especially Russia itself. The less Jews there are within Putin's reach, the less leverage Putin will have in his dealings with Israel.
It's also no coincidence that Russia's announcement of the missile sale came on the heels of U.S. President Barack Obama's latest Neville Chamberlain impression, as he declared to the world that a framework agreement over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program had been reached. "Peace in our time?" I think not - at least not when our time includes dictators like Vladimir Putin and Iran's ayatollahs, who go together like a horse and carriage. In fact, Iran wouldn't be anywhere close to the atomic bomb had it not been for the Russian expertise and ingenuity that built much of the Islamic Republic's nuclear infrastructure.
To make matters worse, Iran isn't the only mortal enemy of Israel that is the beneficiary of Putin's foreign policy. Just ask Syria's dictator, Bashar Al-Assad. He might be dead by now if not for the weapons supplied to him by Putin. Some of these weapons often make it into the hands of Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Islamist terrorist group, based in Lebanon and sworn to Israel's destruction.
Yet, despite all the help that Putin's Russia gives Israel's enemies, Israel's relations with Russia aren't all that bad. In fact, the current Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, is quite chummy with the Russian dictator. Me thinks they like to reminisce about their old KGB days. Personally, I think that Israel should stop trying to be Putin's friend and start fighting for the principles of freedom and democracy upon which it was founded. So when ideas float around about doing something to tick Putin off, like arming the Ukrainians to help them fight against the expanding Russian occupation of their country, I couldn't be happier. At the same time, however, I am also aware of the fact that Israel still needs to tread carefully so as not to jeopardize the lives of thousands of Jews still living in Russia and the former Soviet republics, because they will most definitely become a target for Putin should relations with Israel deteriorate, as I think they will. In light of this, I believe that it would be in Israel's best interest to do what it can to expedite the departure of Jews from the former Soviet states, especially Russia itself. The less Jews there are within Putin's reach, the less leverage Putin will have in his dealings with Israel.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
The Same Conditions That Allowed Hitler's Rise to Power in Germany Helped Putin Come to Power in Russia
A growing number of people, including myself, can't help but compare Putin's Russia to Nazi Germany before World War II. There are significant similarities between the two, some of which I have mentioned in my previous posts. One thing I haven't talked about yet, however, is how the conditions in Germany before WWII, which helped precipitate Hitler's rise to power, are very similar to the conditions faced by Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, which ultimately allowed Putin to rise to power.
Germany paid a heavy price for its defeat in WWI. The country was forced to cede territory and pay reparations to the victorious allied powers. The Germans were also forced to accept responsibility for starting the war. Furthermore, Germany's once mighty military was to be dismantled to the point where the country could no longer project military power beyond its borders. As a result of these conditions, the German economy was ruined and the country became less than a third rate power. Frustrated and humiliated, the Germans looked to someone who could restore the country to prominence again. They found that person in Adolf Hitler. Hitler played on the anger of German citizens towards those perceived to have caused Germany's ruin in order to gain popularity. And as we all know, Hitler's growing popularity with the German people eventually led him to the seat of power as he became Chancellor in 1933.
Fast forward a few decades to 1991, the year that the Soviet Union collapsed. Just as Germany was crippled by its defeat in WWI, so was Russia by its defeat in the Cold War. The end of the Soviet Union meant that Russia could no longer dominate the other countries that were once part of the Soviet state, let alone the former Soviet satellite states of eastern Europe. In fact, Russia had to struggle even to maintain its own borders as separatist revolts sprang up in the Caucuses region and threatened to spread to other parts of the country. Much of the former Soviet Union's military might was now in the hands of newly sovereign countries, and whatever was still in Russian hands was largely left to decay due to lack of funds. Russia also lost hold of many of its ethnic kinsmen as millions of Russians came under the sovereignty of new states like Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The decade that followed the Soviet Union's demise was one in which Russia was reduced to an economic basket case. People that were once taken care of by the old Soviet state found themselves in abject poverty, not knowing where their next meal would come from. Even Russia's soldiers, once the pride of the Soviet Union, were reduced to begging in the streets.
As an avid follower of politics and current events, I remember watching and reading the news about the harsh conditions in Russia. I was only in high school at the time, but I can remember thinking about how the situation in Russia mirrored that of Germany between the two world wars, and I knew that all it would take for Russia to become dangerous again was a strongman who could promise the Russian people that he would restore the country to greatness. Unfortunately, I was right, and although my prediction came to pass a lot later than I had initially anticipated, it did eventually come to pass when Putin took the reigns of power following President Boris Yeltsin's resignation on the first day of the new millennium, January 1st, 2000.
Fifteen years later, Putin's position as Russia's dictator is almost unchallenged. He has rebuilt Russia's economy and its military, and now threatens the security and stability of not only Europe, but the entire world. So unfortunately, it seems that history has repeated itself as the tyrant known as Vladimir Putin has managed to swing his people behind him by tapping into their anger over Russia's post-Cold War humiliation, just as Hitler came to power by playing on the anger of the German people over their country's defeat and humiliation in WWI. My greatest fear? That a world war bringing destruction upon humankind as never seen before will follow Putin's rise to power, just as it did Hitler's.
Germany paid a heavy price for its defeat in WWI. The country was forced to cede territory and pay reparations to the victorious allied powers. The Germans were also forced to accept responsibility for starting the war. Furthermore, Germany's once mighty military was to be dismantled to the point where the country could no longer project military power beyond its borders. As a result of these conditions, the German economy was ruined and the country became less than a third rate power. Frustrated and humiliated, the Germans looked to someone who could restore the country to prominence again. They found that person in Adolf Hitler. Hitler played on the anger of German citizens towards those perceived to have caused Germany's ruin in order to gain popularity. And as we all know, Hitler's growing popularity with the German people eventually led him to the seat of power as he became Chancellor in 1933.
Fast forward a few decades to 1991, the year that the Soviet Union collapsed. Just as Germany was crippled by its defeat in WWI, so was Russia by its defeat in the Cold War. The end of the Soviet Union meant that Russia could no longer dominate the other countries that were once part of the Soviet state, let alone the former Soviet satellite states of eastern Europe. In fact, Russia had to struggle even to maintain its own borders as separatist revolts sprang up in the Caucuses region and threatened to spread to other parts of the country. Much of the former Soviet Union's military might was now in the hands of newly sovereign countries, and whatever was still in Russian hands was largely left to decay due to lack of funds. Russia also lost hold of many of its ethnic kinsmen as millions of Russians came under the sovereignty of new states like Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The decade that followed the Soviet Union's demise was one in which Russia was reduced to an economic basket case. People that were once taken care of by the old Soviet state found themselves in abject poverty, not knowing where their next meal would come from. Even Russia's soldiers, once the pride of the Soviet Union, were reduced to begging in the streets.
As an avid follower of politics and current events, I remember watching and reading the news about the harsh conditions in Russia. I was only in high school at the time, but I can remember thinking about how the situation in Russia mirrored that of Germany between the two world wars, and I knew that all it would take for Russia to become dangerous again was a strongman who could promise the Russian people that he would restore the country to greatness. Unfortunately, I was right, and although my prediction came to pass a lot later than I had initially anticipated, it did eventually come to pass when Putin took the reigns of power following President Boris Yeltsin's resignation on the first day of the new millennium, January 1st, 2000.
Fifteen years later, Putin's position as Russia's dictator is almost unchallenged. He has rebuilt Russia's economy and its military, and now threatens the security and stability of not only Europe, but the entire world. So unfortunately, it seems that history has repeated itself as the tyrant known as Vladimir Putin has managed to swing his people behind him by tapping into their anger over Russia's post-Cold War humiliation, just as Hitler came to power by playing on the anger of the German people over their country's defeat and humiliation in WWI. My greatest fear? That a world war bringing destruction upon humankind as never seen before will follow Putin's rise to power, just as it did Hitler's.
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Israel Must Not Be A Theocracy
Yesterday, I happen to come across an article in the English internet version of Israel's Yedioth Ahronot, reporting that an Israeli couple was denied entry into a park in Afula because they had leavened food, or chametz as it is called in Hebrew (see: Visitors barred entry to Afula park because they had chametz). Since it's now Passover, many Jews traditionally abstain from eating leavened food in order to honour and remember the Israelites' exodus from Egypt. In fact, as the article illustrates, there are actually far-reaching laws in Israel against displaying food with chametz or bringing it into public places during the Passover holiday. The problem is that there are many Jews, including myself, who could care less as to whether they consume food with chametz during Passover. Too bad for us secular people though, because Israel's Passover laws apply to all Jews, not just the religious ones. The story of a couple not being allowed to enter a park with chametz during Passover is just another episode in Israel's seemingly endless conflict between religion and state.
Bear in mind, of course, that the religion vs. state debate is one that plays out in virtually all countries. It takes on a more unique significance in Israel, however, because Israel is home to so many of the world's important religious sites, especially for adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It isn't called the Holy Land for nothing. Israel also defines itself as a Jewish state, which for some means a state in which Jewish religious laws are enforced. But this is an interpretation of the Jewish state concept that I and many others do not agree with. Yes, Israel has many holy places and the state has a responsibility to protect and preserve the holy sites in accordance with the religious traditions of which they are a part. And yes, Israel is a Jewish state, but this does not mean that it should be imposing Jewish religious laws on its population, Jewish or otherwise. I personally have a different interpretation of what a Jewish state is. In fact, I would prefer that the State of Israel focus more on promoting a less ethnically-based Israeli identity rather than obsessing over its Jewishness. For me, the concept of a "Jewish state" simply means protecting the State of Israel as the embodiment of Jewish independence and ensuring that Israel continues to welcome Jews from around the world seeking protection from persecution based on their Jewishness. It does not mean a state that imposes any particular interpretation of what it means to be Jewish on its population.
I am of the opinion that Israel needs to do away with imposing religious laws on its citizens, especially since many of the people who support such religious restrictions are not loyal to the country in the first place. Indeed, some of the folks that don't want anyone working on Shabbat are the same folks who burn Israeli flags on independence day. They're the same people who threaten women and even spit on them for not dressing modestly enough. Why should we have to impose religious laws on the Israeli public at large to appease these subversive and disgusting elements of our population? The answer is that we certainly shouldn't have to.
So I say, let's allow Israelis to visit the country's parks during Passover without having some guard check for chametz as if he was a member of the Jewish Taliban. Let's allow civil marriages and divorce so that our citizens are not at the mercy of religious courts. Let's allow public transportation to run on Shabbat and other holidays. And let's end the Orthodox monopoly on Jewish religious affairs in Israel. Now of course, I understand that doing these things would severely breach the status quo religious arrangements Israel has had since independence, but so what? These arrangements are nothing but chains put around Israeli citizens by theocratic would-be dictators, many of whom do not support the existence of the State of Israel anyway.
Bear in mind, of course, that the religion vs. state debate is one that plays out in virtually all countries. It takes on a more unique significance in Israel, however, because Israel is home to so many of the world's important religious sites, especially for adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It isn't called the Holy Land for nothing. Israel also defines itself as a Jewish state, which for some means a state in which Jewish religious laws are enforced. But this is an interpretation of the Jewish state concept that I and many others do not agree with. Yes, Israel has many holy places and the state has a responsibility to protect and preserve the holy sites in accordance with the religious traditions of which they are a part. And yes, Israel is a Jewish state, but this does not mean that it should be imposing Jewish religious laws on its population, Jewish or otherwise. I personally have a different interpretation of what a Jewish state is. In fact, I would prefer that the State of Israel focus more on promoting a less ethnically-based Israeli identity rather than obsessing over its Jewishness. For me, the concept of a "Jewish state" simply means protecting the State of Israel as the embodiment of Jewish independence and ensuring that Israel continues to welcome Jews from around the world seeking protection from persecution based on their Jewishness. It does not mean a state that imposes any particular interpretation of what it means to be Jewish on its population.
I am of the opinion that Israel needs to do away with imposing religious laws on its citizens, especially since many of the people who support such religious restrictions are not loyal to the country in the first place. Indeed, some of the folks that don't want anyone working on Shabbat are the same folks who burn Israeli flags on independence day. They're the same people who threaten women and even spit on them for not dressing modestly enough. Why should we have to impose religious laws on the Israeli public at large to appease these subversive and disgusting elements of our population? The answer is that we certainly shouldn't have to.
So I say, let's allow Israelis to visit the country's parks during Passover without having some guard check for chametz as if he was a member of the Jewish Taliban. Let's allow civil marriages and divorce so that our citizens are not at the mercy of religious courts. Let's allow public transportation to run on Shabbat and other holidays. And let's end the Orthodox monopoly on Jewish religious affairs in Israel. Now of course, I understand that doing these things would severely breach the status quo religious arrangements Israel has had since independence, but so what? These arrangements are nothing but chains put around Israeli citizens by theocratic would-be dictators, many of whom do not support the existence of the State of Israel anyway.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
No Palestinian State? So What's the Alternative?
Towards the end of the election campaign, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that a Palestinian state would not be established while he was Prime Minister. After winning the election, however, Netanyahu said that he was still committed to the two-state solution. So the question is, does the Israeli Prime Minister believe in a two-state solution or not? I can't read Bibi's mind, but something tells me that he would prefer that the two-state solution not be allowed to happen. My guess is that he accepts the two-state solution in theory, but not in practice, because he knows that the Palestinians will never agree to the conditions that every Israeli government, both left wing and right wing, has always insisted upon: demilitarization, security arrangements to protect Israel's borders, the negation of the Palestinians' so-called "Right of Return" that would compromise Jewish independence, and so forth. If this is the case, then I think we should all assume that as long as Netanyahu is the Prime Minister of Israel, there will be no Palestinian state. Okay, so if a Palestinian state is not in the offing, what should we expect as Netanyahu begins a new mandate?
I would say that the future looks pretty bleak. Recently, for example, the IDF has warned that continuing to freeze funds destined for the Palestinian Authority could lead to more violence (see: IDF Warns: Freeze in Palestinian Funds Could Fuel West Bank Unrest). The fact of the matter is that if Palestinians don't see an improvement in their lives soon, they're going to get a lot nastier than the already are. But of course, if there's no two-state solution in site, what hope do Palestinians have of a better life? Moreover, what hope to Israelis have that they won't have to continue putting up with Palestinian terrorism? These questions need answers, but so far, Prime Minister Netanyahu isn't providing any, and this has to change. Okay, so Bibi doesn't want a Palestinian state. On this, I agree with him, but at the same time, if he's not going to accept the solution put forth by the international community, as bad as it may be, then he needs to provide an alternative.
So what alternative is there? Actually, there have always been alternative solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proposed by various sources. Even I put out my own idea for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement (see: My Own Personal Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan). The problem is that I don't see Israel and the Palestinians agreeing to anything substantial in the near future. Hence, the best we can hope for is temporary measures - measures that will not resolve the conflict, but will at least make it more bearable for both sides. One idea, espoused by Naftali Bennett, the leader of the Beit Yehudi (Jewish Home) party involves annexing the territory in Area C, a term dating back to the 1993 Oslo Accords, which refers to territory in Judea and Samaria, aka the West Bank, that is under full Israeli control. Bennett has proposed giving full Israeli citizenship to Palestinians residing in this territory and allowing them the same freedom of movement that other Israelis have. I like this idea because it would dramatically improve the lives of many Palestinians. They would have much better economic prospects without the bother of checkpoints and other military restrictions. I would tweak Bennett's proposal a bit, however, so that we do not formally annex Area C, but simply apply Israeli law to the territory. I would also argue against giving the Palestinians in Area C full Israeli citizenship. After all, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan already gave all the Palestinians in the so-called West Bank citizenship, so why should Israel have to? As far as I'm concerned, the Hashemites dug the hole for themselves, so let them live in it!
Overall, I would say that if anything is to be done to make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more manageable, Israel is going to have to take unilateral actions. Yes, that's right, unilateral. I know that this is a bad word amongst the leaders of the international community, especially Neville Chamberlain wannabes like U.S. President Barack Obama, but the reality is that unless Israel takes action by itself, nothing on the ground will change.
I would say that the future looks pretty bleak. Recently, for example, the IDF has warned that continuing to freeze funds destined for the Palestinian Authority could lead to more violence (see: IDF Warns: Freeze in Palestinian Funds Could Fuel West Bank Unrest). The fact of the matter is that if Palestinians don't see an improvement in their lives soon, they're going to get a lot nastier than the already are. But of course, if there's no two-state solution in site, what hope do Palestinians have of a better life? Moreover, what hope to Israelis have that they won't have to continue putting up with Palestinian terrorism? These questions need answers, but so far, Prime Minister Netanyahu isn't providing any, and this has to change. Okay, so Bibi doesn't want a Palestinian state. On this, I agree with him, but at the same time, if he's not going to accept the solution put forth by the international community, as bad as it may be, then he needs to provide an alternative.
So what alternative is there? Actually, there have always been alternative solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proposed by various sources. Even I put out my own idea for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement (see: My Own Personal Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan). The problem is that I don't see Israel and the Palestinians agreeing to anything substantial in the near future. Hence, the best we can hope for is temporary measures - measures that will not resolve the conflict, but will at least make it more bearable for both sides. One idea, espoused by Naftali Bennett, the leader of the Beit Yehudi (Jewish Home) party involves annexing the territory in Area C, a term dating back to the 1993 Oslo Accords, which refers to territory in Judea and Samaria, aka the West Bank, that is under full Israeli control. Bennett has proposed giving full Israeli citizenship to Palestinians residing in this territory and allowing them the same freedom of movement that other Israelis have. I like this idea because it would dramatically improve the lives of many Palestinians. They would have much better economic prospects without the bother of checkpoints and other military restrictions. I would tweak Bennett's proposal a bit, however, so that we do not formally annex Area C, but simply apply Israeli law to the territory. I would also argue against giving the Palestinians in Area C full Israeli citizenship. After all, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan already gave all the Palestinians in the so-called West Bank citizenship, so why should Israel have to? As far as I'm concerned, the Hashemites dug the hole for themselves, so let them live in it!
Overall, I would say that if anything is to be done to make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more manageable, Israel is going to have to take unilateral actions. Yes, that's right, unilateral. I know that this is a bad word amongst the leaders of the international community, especially Neville Chamberlain wannabes like U.S. President Barack Obama, but the reality is that unless Israel takes action by itself, nothing on the ground will change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)